Announcements

I'd class computer questions related to cognitive topics as on-topic as long as it wasn't strictly about the programming. – David ThornleyJun 23 '10 at 3:30

6

Technically linguistics, philosophy, education, and anthropology should all be included. See the cognitive science society's webpage cognitivesciencesociety.org/index.html . At the very least, learning science should be replaced with some subset of those fields. – mpacerJan 16 '11 at 11:16

Talking is the least problem :D "feel like" requires compatible "feeling" which can't be guaranteed even between humans I suppose – naugturAug 11 '10 at 13:03

Actually this is the classical Cognitive Science question asked in the 1974 by Thomas Nagel. <quote>In "What is it Like to Be a Bat?", Nagel argues that consciousness has essential to it a subjective character, a what it is like aspect. He states that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism."</quote> -- the fact that it was rated as an off-topic shows how little the audience of stackoverflow intersects with the experts of the subject matter of this proposed Q&A site. – zvolkovSep 27 '10 at 20:21

@zvolkov: Good titles for articles are not often good questions for this kind of Q&A site. I've not voted any which way on this question, but I'd be better disposed to the question if it read "What do cognitive scientists make of Nagel's Bat essay today?" – Charles StewartSep 28 '10 at 7:45

Although cognitive science does include philosophical considerations, this question is too general – Jeromy AnglimJun 3 '10 at 3:20

Questions on free will are separate from cognitive science, IMO, delving a bit more into the philosophical side than this proposal might expect. – IAbstractJun 7 '10 at 23:20

2

This is way too broad and amateurish at the same time. Read any literature on the Cog.Sci it will contain TONS of discussions about this. – zvolkovJun 17 '10 at 18:45

This site should be quantitative, and since "free will" has no clear quantified definition, it's not an appropriate topic. – CerinAug 4 '10 at 18:25

1

I wouldn't say the topic is unappropriate, the question is just too broad as it is. There is plenty of scientific literature on free will. For instance, the early work of Libet and colleagues in the '80s (e.g. Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act - Brain 1983). An interesting assay on this was published a while ago on Nature: nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/… . – nicoSep 25 '10 at 13:42